10 ms·

Introducing Oculus Go, Plus Santa Cruz Updates

196 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
arielweisberg 9y ago
It's great they are getting something out the door today at a lower price with lower barrier to entry and less complexity. That said this doesn't seem to support tracked controllers and it's not clear if it would ever support tracked controllers. It's VR, but VR without tracked controllers is almost a different category. Still when you look at what it replaces (GearVR) it's a huge step forward. You no longer need to tie up an expensive phone that's going to overheat and have no battery left. You get lenses and a display designed for VR and positional tracking where previously there was only rotation. It's also interesting that they are messaging nothing about a next generation headset you can tether to a powerful computer or console. That's where my interest lies. I would be fine with even just a refresh of the Rift with a better display and lenses. I'm not even looking for a bump in resolution.
- mortenjorck 9y ago
  > VR without tracked controllers is almost a different category This is an important and under-appreciated point. Presence is a combination of many factors, and "hand presence," as Oculus is calling it, is a huge one. I still remember the first time I tried a Vive: I was already familiar with VR from the DK2, but interacting in 3D space gave the whole experience a wholly unfamiliar, almost dream-like sensation. At this price point, tracked controller support seems unlikely, but perhaps a future Bluetooth lighthouse could enable it. Honestly, I think that should be a priority: if it comes down to more detailed graphics versus tracked controllers, I'll take the controllers every time.
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    Have you two clicked the link to the article at all? The second part is a release of wireless, tracked (from the headset, no lighthouses) controllers.
    - mortenjorck 9y ago
      You may not have read it closely enough. With the caveat that the article is somewhat confusing in how it juxtaposes the two, the first part is about the entry-level, coming-to-market standalone headset (Oculus Go), while the second part is about the high-end, still-a-prototype standalone headset (Santa Cruz). The controllers are for Santa Cruz, not Oculus Go.
- arielweisberg 9y ago
  I was incorrect it's not 6dof it's 3dof. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/oculus-go-vr-everything,35666.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/oculus-go-vr-everything,356... So really it's just more mobile VR which I don't think much of.
Osmium 9y ago
Can someone explain to me how they can make a device worth buying for $200? That seems incredibly cheap since the cost of decent VR systems are ~$500+ and that's without a machine to provide processing/GPU.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Low end components. The experience is not going to be anywhere near that of a PC tethered Oculus and it's going to be more of what you find on Daydream/Gear VR.
  - Osmium 9y ago
    My only experience so far is Google Cardboard with an iPhone ... would you expect an Oculus Go to be any better than this? (I know iPhone screens aren't high-DPI enough for VR, but I doubt a screen in a $200 product would be much better, and the processor/GPU would surely be inferior? I'd really like to get into VR at a decent price point, but I just can't see how this works.)
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      Daydream/Gear VR experiences are significantly better than cardboard. The Oculus Go is likely running a forked version of Android so that they can leverage their existing Gear VR catalog: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/ https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/
- JD557 9y ago
  I'm expecting the quality to be on par with gear VR. They should be able to cut some costs when compared to phone manufactors, since they don't need to support SIM cards, can use bulkier components and get the case "for free".
- root_axis 9y ago
  It has no positional tracking so that already puts it within the "google cardboard" region of user experience quality (compared with the premium headsets)
FLGMwt 9y ago
As expected, looks like it'll be much closer to Gear VR than the Rift. It does not have positional tracking.
excalibur 9y ago
Love it! Sure there will be gripes about the capabilities and the specs, but a standalone headset that doesn't require a PC or phone is pretty much the ideal form factor for VR.
- rocky1138 9y ago
  It's getting there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ansible 9y ago
  In many ways, the standalone headset is potentially much better for VR/AR. At least with regards to reacting to the user's movements. If the processing and display is close to your face, that cuts down some of the latency. Now, yes, I know that at the speed of light (or more properly the speed of electrical signals) having a PC 3m away is only about 10ns, which is not going to be noticeable. But there will need to be translation on each end to send a signal that far away, such as conversion to / from HDMI. If the embedded processor in the headset is directly connected to the LCD, that type of conversion eliminated. Ditto for cameras and other sensors needed for position tracking. To reduce latency, developers are counting microseconds these days. Crazy.
  - Retric 9y ago
    What your describing is a non issue. If you do something 10,000 time every frame that takes 10ns it's still only 0.0001 seconds and no you don't need to make that trip 10,000 times sequentially.
- rdslw 9y ago
  It does require external powerhouse (PC) if you would like to have any decent(1) virtual world. (1) all AAA games (working on the GTX 9xx or 1xxx) are still subpar to the reality, and they're disspating hundreds of wattage. It's not possible to put it into binoculars.
zylent 9y ago
"Today, we showed the next phase of Santa Cruz development, delivering hand presence with two positionally tracked controllers. This is an important, industry-first milestone that brings the magic and incredible design expertise of Touch into a completely standalone experience." How is this different than the vive controller?
- RubenSandwich 9y ago
  I’m guessing because it doesn’t require the Lighthouse ‘tracking tower’, but they are not quite clear on what they mean.
  - zylent 9y ago
    That makes sense, I guess I'm just being pedantic
    - RubenSandwich 9y ago
      In my darkest days I feel like my job as a Software Engineer is to be pedantic to new ideas, because my work has trained me to be incurability micro oriented.
- vertoc 9y ago
  This is a stand-alone headset I believe - it doesn’t need a seperate computer to run
  - shmed 9y ago
    More importantly, it doesnt require external sensors (to the opposite of the vive controllers and headset which require the 2 lighthouse sensors)
  - rdslw 9y ago
    It does require a separate graphics card, though requiring separate PC or console. There need to be a place to dissipate that 200W+ of power current GTX cards are using, and this is not possible to fit it in kind of binoculars. Thats marketing gimmick Oculus is doing: it does not require phone (as daydream does) but it does require graphics powerhouse to generate all the virtual reality (unless you don't want the world to be as in current AAA games which DO REQUIRE GTX kind of power).
hauget 9y ago
Are specs cited anywhere? (e.g. resolution, battery life)
cridenour 9y ago
It's a little light on specs, but the price point is amazing for getting the broader community excited about VR.
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  This makes VR way way way more attractive to me - accessible and affordable. If VR will break through this seems like the product to do it. The trouble with VR so far isn’t VR itself, because Vr is actually pretty cool, but the trouble is that it’s a giant pain to get into, both cost and set up and so on, it’s not currently reasonable to buy vr . This product seems like it could change that. Seems like a big deal to me.
JohnTHaller 9y ago
Curious why a user would opt for this over a Google daydream given that it's near certain they already have a mobile device. Granted for iPhone users or mid/low end Android users with lower resolution screens it would be more cost effective than buying a mobile device with a good qhd screen.
- Theodores 9y ago
  Facebook. Although an open platform the goal here is to sell you advertisements. They can sell this platform much like a console. In ad revenue you could be worth the cost of the headset. They could give these things away if they wanted to own the VR gadget space forever.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    And that's supposed to make me want to get this thing?
- bootloop 9y ago
  They cover this target group already with the Samsung Gear VR But as you said. Not everybody has a 1000$ phone.
  - JohnTHaller 9y ago
    Google Daydream works with phones like the Axon 7 ($380) and the Moto Z ($450) as well as the original Pixel ($549). It hardly requires a $1000 phone. It just requires something with a resolution better than 720p (mid/low end Android phones and the iPhone for that matter).
- skykooler 9y ago
  Possibilities: * User has an iPhone * User has a lower-end phone that can't run this * User has a different phone OS (Windows Phone, Sailfish OS, etc) * User's phone doesn't have long enough battery life while running 3d apps
  - 9y ago
fenwick67 9y ago
Honestly I just want a Rift priced at $300 without the touch controllers (today, with touch controllers it's $400).
- timdorr 9y ago
  I got mine during the summer sale before they offered the all-in-one box. I got my HMD before I got my Touch controllers. Not having Touch was a huge limitation on the kinds of games I could use, and made the experience feel like a neato tech demo and not anything of substance. You definitely don't want a Rift without Touch.
TY 9y ago
Interesting news! Will be looking forward to the specs and actual demo experiences. Also, I wish they were lighter on the word "magic"...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Yuioup 9y ago
Sorry, but I'm really turned off of the Oculus Rift because of Palmer Luckey and Facebook. Gives me the creeps.
- marlokk 9y ago
  come on now, embrace your inevitable future https://cdn.uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zuckerberg-rows-1024x682.jpg https://cdn.uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zuckerbe...
- cr0sh 9y ago
  I don't think Palmer is part of Oculus any longer; I could have sworn he left earlier this year, or maybe last? Facebook is still there, though. Despite my being an early backer of the original Rift KS (I have the DK1 and the FB branded CV1 - both unused), I over Oculus' offerings, ever since they dropped Linux support. It was one of the main reasons I supported the KS to begin with, but then when it got big, they just decided our market segment wasn't worth supporting. I will never, ever understand why hardware companies have such problems with this - I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument why hardware API specs can't be released to the community in order to allow them to create drivers - instead, the community has to go thru an arduous round after round of reverse-engineering the protocols and API just to get (at best) 2nd-tier support of the device (usually with buggy and/or missing results). It's been a huge pain with graphics cards, and now its continuing with VR headsets. Also - why isn't anybody supporting or mentioning OSVR? There's another player in the headset market nobody ever mentions - Razer - who seems to be the only one who does support OSVR, yet their product is given virtually no coverage anywhere. I don't know why that is, either.
  - Impossible 9y ago
    Razer doesn't get mentioned because their product is not very good. OSVR is their proprietary API, and its an "open" standard in the same way OpenVR is. OpenXR, the Khronos standard for VR/AR/MR devices will be the industry standard API equivalent to OpenGL, but even OpenVR (Vive/SteamVR api) is a better option than OSVR currently.
GuiA 9y ago
> awesome for watching movies or concerts, playing games, or just hanging out with your friends in VR. I have real life for movies, concerts, and hanging out with friends, so that leaves games. What’s the content offering like for VR these days? Are there any games that are more than a tech demo that lasts for a few hours? Something like a Skyrim or a Civ, that I will want to return to week after week?
- kpil 9y ago
  Flight sims. Elite dangerous. I think motion sickness might be a problem for some people though.
mtgx 9y ago
So I think that VR headsets (the real ones) do need to come down in price before they (and VR in general) can become mainstream, even though the technology is still quite not there yet, which means it will be hard to make such devices cheap while also upgrading their technology (or at least slow/er). However, this isn't really what Oculus is doing here. This isn't a "cheaper version of Oculus Rift". This is an expensive version of Gear VR/any Android Daydream headset. It has some extra sensors and whatnot, but other than that, it should play the same content. So how are most people going to understand the difference between a $60-$100 Daydream headset and a $200 Oculus Go? At least the $600 headsets actually offer you a different kind of experience (realistic 3D games, etc), even though their price means they'll be relegated to an early adopter market for a few more years.
- hanikesn 9y ago
  They also announced a new $400 permanent price for the Rift+Touch.
- barnabee 9y ago
  I have an iPhone, at least from that perspective it's a cheap version of the Gear VR.
- BRAlNlAC 9y ago
  I don't even get who buys these cheaper VR headsets. I'm an early-adopter type and I can't see the purpose of Galaxy VR, Google Daydream or this new Occulus Go. I guess they are just like a $100+ novelty? At least the Vive (and to a lesser extent the Rift) are gaming hardware that can be put to use if you have a high-end tower, but the resolution and frame rates good VR requires need state of the art hardware to run any (albeit subjectively) interesting titles at this point in time. It seems to me like they are taking a product that isn't there yet and pushing it to market hoping to dupe consumers into spending money on a half-baked idea. Kinda like the push towards "tablet computers" in the early 2000's.
  - gervase 9y ago
    I get the same feeling when I see these products. I think they are targeted at the (surprisingly large!) segment of the population for whom their phone is their only computing device. In the bubble that is HN, they make little sense, but I assume these companies must have done some kind of market research that indicates that these products actually drive demand in a consumer group that has basically zero overlap with ours.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Aardwolf 9y ago
I don't see any earphones in the photos, how does it work for matching 3D audio? Does it have a headphone jack? EDIT: Oh it says it right there in the article! That was a redundant comment... Reason I cared about is that last time I tried VR, the audio came from stationary speakers and it was a very weird experience to have the direction of the audio not match what I saw :)
- drdrey 9y ago
  "If you need it, there’s also a 3.5mm headphone jack for private listening."
- zylent 9y ago
  The page says there is a 3.5mm jack.
ericzawo 9y ago
This doesn't say shit about shit. What kind of media will I be able to interact in with Oculus? To me the value add to purchasing one of these is to be able to see those cool 360 degree videos on Youtube, maybe game, and I don't know what else so educate me! Reads like an "announcing the announcement" more than anything.
- jsgo 9y ago
  My guess is that it is going to be an all-in-one of what is currently GearVR. Can't remember the name of the app, but there's a Video application where you can watch 360 videos (there are also apps that have 360 videos from Disney and the like) and 2D videos in a virtual theater (the theater is a skin though, so can watch in other locations as well). I've also watched the Youtube 360 videos you mention I believe within an app on the device, or maybe it was via browser. Sorry, been a while since I used the thing (neat device, but not enough to maintain interest). Personal experience: the video always looked grainy on my S7 Edge + GearVR headset. I'm kind of waiting for the next iteration of headsets of which I kind of think we're there with Samsung's Oddyssey or whatever (though really wanted LG to release that flip-visor headset they demoed as that'd be great for shifting between VR and real world without constantly taking off and putting on).
angryasian 9y ago
Im curious to know if the Oculus Go will work with the touch controllers.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
I'm going to take a guess and say that this is running a forked version of Android. Oculus has a Gear VR store [1] and it only makes sense to leverage the existing software catalog than start from scratch. [1]https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/ https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/
mherrmann 9y ago
Does anybody know if VR headsets will eventually replace monitors? Would be great for ergonomics. Much more portable, you don't have to sit but can lie on a couch, have a lot of screen estate even in tight spaces such as on a plane etc. That with a keyboard is my dream setup.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- some-guy 9y ago
  This is what I'm waiting for, basically. When I had a DK2, using the virtual desktop application was so much fun. The issue is that the resolution isn't quite there yet, but I think that issue will be solved sooner than you would think (at least for desktop use).
- wukerplank 9y ago
  It depends on your job, but this sounds horrific to me. Like a cubicle but smaller.
  - Grazester 9y ago
    Isn't the idea of VR to be immersive so that is seems like a large real world?
    - wukerplank 9y ago
      Yes, but in my office I often talk to other devs, designers and QA being immersed in a different world would make collaboration a tedious task for everybody. Just being able to turn around and exchange a few words is fast, easy and human.
  - linuxps2 9y ago
    I fly a ton for my job and I typically use a USB monitor but obviously on a plane this isn't possible (hell, there is barely enough room for me to work on just my laptop much less two screens) - virtual screens via a VR headset would be a game-changer for me. I probably wouldn't use them daily (quad monitor setup at home, usb monitor when travelling) but would definitely spend a several hundred on a headset if it means multi-monitor on a plane
boona 9y ago
I was hoping to buy the current Oculus, but I never got around to it since I for one need to plan out a bit more when it comes to that price. At a $200 price point though, I can pick one up without having to think about it twice. I'm getting one when it comes out.
vm 9y ago
Anyone know what the hurdles are for broad VR adoption? This announcement seems to be saying it's 1) untethered and 2) $200 price point. Those will probably increase the current market size but I just haven't seen anyone (anecdotally) clamoring for VR. Curious if anyone has a view on other bottlenecks.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- yashksagar 9y ago
  I believe there's still concerns around long-term usage, like the eyes/brain mismatch to focusing on something that's 'virtually' a few meters away, but in reality is in front of your face, which can cause nausea.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Being in the industry (AR actually not VR) and talking with customers and the average person almost weekly, the #1 barrier to HMDs: "I don't want to put something on my face"
  - mdorazio 9y ago
    I agree. It's the same major factor that killed "3D" TVs - no one wants to put on special equipment just to watch a movie/play a game. I personally don't think headset-based VR will ever see mass market adoption in the same way that AR/MR will.
- sago 9y ago
  A killer 'app'. Some experience that can only be delivered on VR that is totally compelling to mainstream consumers. That could drive the entire segment, I think. I don't think its games. At least, it's not obvious how to turn existing kinds of games into VR experiences, and make them mind blowing. In my experience, VR games are not currently very good games, and are relatively lacklustre as tourist experiences. So what? I wish I knew. But I just don't think there is a compelling reason for most people, even most passionate gamers, at the moment. Which, as a fan, pains me to say.
polskibus 9y ago
Did they improve the resolution at all? As far as I remember, I was still able to see pixels and that spoils the immersion for me.
- GuB-42 9y ago
  If anything, it will be worse. The point of Oculus Go and Santa Cruz is to be untethered, and, if possible, cheaper than the Rift. While it is undoubtedly a worthy goal, as anyone who tried a VR headset can tell you, it also means that you are letting go of the hundreds of watts computing power that a compatible PC represents. And without that power, it will be much more difficult to get the required latency, framerate and resolution. EDIT : The Oculus Go is actually a little better than the rift : 2560x1440 vs 2160x1200, same FOV and supposedly better optics, so in term of not seeing the pixels, that should be better. The tradeoff is probably less details, maybe with upscaling.
  - polskibus 9y ago
    That sucks. I wish they focused on best immersion quality first and optimize next.
    - spicyj 9y ago
      It sounds like they claim making it untethered makes a big improvement to immersion.
      - polskibus 9y ago
        I tried hololens, while I know it's AR not VR, the graphics sucked and it made the immersion much much worse than being on cable would. They should first achieve something that hooks people in ways not done before even if it requires a 1080ti in sli + cable. Lowering the specs and/or quality of the final image is the wrong way to do it.
        agar 9y ago
socialist_coder 9y ago
What are the hardware stats on this Oculus Go? I can't imagine for $200 it's very impressive...
efnx 9y ago
I bought into Oculus with the DK2, but fell off once they discontinued support for Mac and Linux. It's a shame, really.
jv22222 9y ago
Is it just me, or does this image of three people laughing with one of them wearing a VR headset seem a bit bizzar? https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1788230948138287_3202612921985138688_n.jpg?oh=ae5250c43e08d6f1e357c789c1af0f0d&oe=5A73F659 https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1... We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction. I can't think how many times I've seen a group of friends at a Starbucks not talking to each other and all looking at their devices. But, at least, their actual faces are not covered by a huge mask with no way to look into each others eyes. This picture makes me wonder about where this is all headed. For example, will there be a day when a group of friends are sitting around a table in Starbucks without the possibility of eye contact? Edit: I'm not against VR I am just musing about what this ultimately means for all of us.
- monk_e_boy 9y ago
  I wonder if this is a generational thing or a location thing. Over here in the UK my family went to the pub (3 families) to eat. The whole pub was mobile phone free. There were one or two on tables, but no one was looking at them, I guess they were there as 'phones' in case a baby sitter needed to phone.
- agmcleod 9y ago
  I think your fears are fair. Though in that specific shot, this reminds me of times where with a single headset, we all take turns using it, and the others enjoy watching them do it. Though as a day to day device one wears, I do worry that it removes us from each other too much.
- sushisource 9y ago
  " We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction. " (Rolleyes). Yeah, uh-huh. We can all agree phones sometimes intrude in ways we wouldn't like but if you think they've "killed all social interaction" you need to find some new friends. VR is certainly a different matter but humans fundamentally crave social interaction. VR won't change that. AI, eventually, on the other hand...
  - 9y ago
thebiglebrewski 9y ago
This looks cool
n42 9y ago
The original Rift required a gaming rig to run. I'm curious what kind of tradeoffs have to be made to launch this. Personally, I'm not very interested in a VR headset being anything more than a display. This makes me feel like it is a Smart TV, which is not something I want. We'll see how I feel in the future.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Eventually this will likely serve both. This is nothing more than say Samsung Gear VR but without a removable mobile phone That said being able to use this anywhere as a personal display device as well as not being limited by the pretty heavy umbilical cord setup is the way to go. If you are going to put wireless hardware in the headset it’s not like a mobile media player and a light application platform will detract from its value. As an early VR adopter I can say that both my headsets ended up on the shelf after a few weeks. It’s just too exhausting to play traditional games and with non-VR exclusive titles it’s actually a bit disadvantage in competitive play. Mouse look and keybind reverse look beat a VR headset in sims and the UI for any titles but EVE Valkyrie is still better on a flat display. Humans are not owls we can’t turn our necks at lighting speed and there is a reason why even 200M dollar jets have mirrors and now 360 camera coverage. Games like Elite aren’t designed like an F35 they are designed around mouse look and being able to switching between 3rd and 1st person views quickly. Until some one will design a VR game with 21st century smart helmet augmented reality style interface in the game it won’t work well and even then mouse look would still likely be faster. However the killer app for me was actually the home cinema app as well as some of the creative sandboxes. These don’t need my 1080ti setup and I don’t really want to be tethered to my tower.
linarism 9y ago
Positional tracking?
finnh 9y ago
This is a bit OT, but: I live in Seattle and I would love to experience a top-end VR headset; tethered is fine. Are there stores that specialize in this? Where would/should I go?
- corysama 9y ago
  https://www.meetup.com/topics/virtual-reality/us/wa/seattle/ https://www.meetup.com/topics/virtual-reality/us/wa/seattle/
  - finnh 9y ago
    ah, thank you. I don't do social media so it doesn't even occur to me that answering this type of question is actually easy =)
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Both Oculus and Vive give demos set up in various retail outlets in the US: https://live.oculus.com/ https://live.oculus.com/ http://locator.vive.com/ http://locator.vive.com/
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  There's a VR Arcade called "Portal" in Ballard that has padded rooms with Vive headsets hanging from the ceiling.
  - shidoshi 9y ago
    In my neighborhood, and I keep meaning to stop in. I just keep walking by because I am unsure what they are selling.
- AdamTReineke 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure the Microsoft Store in Bellevue still has an HTC Vive set up for demos. There may be a couple people in line. I expect the other Microsoft stores have similar demo stations, you can probably call to verify if you don't want to cross the lake. [Disclaimer: work at Microsoft but not in retail. I've used the Vive but not the store demo station.]
kapnobatairza 9y ago
I feel like it was a missed opportunity not making this a mixed reality headset. VR is great for completely immersive experiences but otherwise becomes a nuisance. Problems I've had with VR: 1) Audiovisual Isolation. With immersive VR you are unable to interact with the real world and often unable to see or here what is going on around you. It always feels creepy to me to put on my VIVE and not be aware that someone has walked into my room or has been knocking on my door. 2) Very poor multitasking. VR experiences demand uninterrupted focus. I'm often not 100% immersed in whatever I'm doing at any given time. I will share my focus with other activities and other external events. I don't like having my focus locked onto a single activity for long spans of time. If I'm gaming, I'll probably alt-tab once in a while to send a chat message. If I'm watching a movie, I'll likewise pause or shift my focus if something demands it. There are very limited blocks of time where I'm willing and able to give a VR experience uninterrupted focus. 3) Inability to physically interact with real world objects. If you don't need to do that, that's fine. But what if you want to take a sip of your drink? Eat a snack? Have a smoke? When you have 0 spatial awareness, that is very difficult to do. Even putting down your controllers and switching to a keyboard is hard to do when you cant see where it is. You could just remove the headset every time you want to do this, but that's very cumbersome. This headset doesn't even have a fliptop so that makes it even more cumbersome. All in all I'm not sure how much utility fully immersive HMDs have outside of some unique interactive experiences that are short enough to mitigate some of the above problems. Remember that "dumb" HMD displays (like this: http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/__5010906_orig.png http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/_...) have been available since the 90s. They were also billed as the future of entertainment and TV/monitor killers, but adoption never picked up for the reasons above. People don't like giving up all their focus. That's why mixed reality headsets are more promising to me. If you can insert virtual windows/objects into real world spaces, you can introduce immersion without necessarily sacrificing awareness. Let people jump in and out of virtual reality without having it be an all or nothing compromise.
yashksagar 9y ago
"Oculus, creating a 'rift' between humans at an affordable price."
crunkykd 9y ago
VR would be nice for shut-ins (infirm, imprisoned, remote, etc) to vector somewhere else.

196 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

It's great they are getting something out the door today at a lower price with lower barrier to entry and less complexity. That said this doesn't seem to support tracked controllers and it's not clear if it would ever support tracked controllers. It's VR, but VR without tracked controllers is almost a different category. Still when you look at what it replaces (GearVR) it's a huge step forward. You no longer need to tie up an expensive phone that's going to overheat and have no battery left. You get lenses and a display designed for VR and positional tracking where previously there was only rotation. It's also interesting that they are messaging nothing about a next generation headset you can tether to a powerful computer or console. That's where my interest lies. I would be fine with even just a refresh of the Rift with a better display and lenses. I'm not even looking for a bump in resolution.

mortenjorck 9y ago
> VR without tracked controllers is almost a different category This is an important and under-appreciated point. Presence is a combination of many factors, and "hand presence," as Oculus is calling it, is a huge one. I still remember the first time I tried a Vive: I was already familiar with VR from the DK2, but interacting in 3D space gave the whole experience a wholly unfamiliar, almost dream-like sensation. At this price point, tracked controller support seems unlikely, but perhaps a future Bluetooth lighthouse could enable it. Honestly, I think that should be a priority: if it comes down to more detailed graphics versus tracked controllers, I'll take the controllers every time.
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  Have you two clicked the link to the article at all? The second part is a release of wireless, tracked (from the headset, no lighthouses) controllers.
  - mortenjorck 9y ago
    You may not have read it closely enough. With the caveat that the article is somewhat confusing in how it juxtaposes the two, the first part is about the entry-level, coming-to-market standalone headset (Oculus Go), while the second part is about the high-end, still-a-prototype standalone headset (Santa Cruz). The controllers are for Santa Cruz, not Oculus Go.
arielweisberg 9y ago
I was incorrect it's not 6dof it's 3dof. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/oculus-go-vr-everything,35666.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/oculus-go-vr-everything,356... So really it's just more mobile VR which I don't think much of.

Osmium 9y ago

Can someone explain to me how they can make a device worth buying for $200? That seems incredibly cheap since the cost of decent VR systems are ~$500+ and that's without a machine to provide processing/GPU.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
Low end components. The experience is not going to be anywhere near that of a PC tethered Oculus and it's going to be more of what you find on Daydream/Gear VR.
- Osmium 9y ago
  My only experience so far is Google Cardboard with an iPhone ... would you expect an Oculus Go to be any better than this? (I know iPhone screens aren't high-DPI enough for VR, but I doubt a screen in a $200 product would be much better, and the processor/GPU would surely be inferior? I'd really like to get into VR at a decent price point, but I just can't see how this works.)
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Daydream/Gear VR experiences are significantly better than cardboard. The Oculus Go is likely running a forked version of Android so that they can leverage their existing Gear VR catalog: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/ https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/
JD557 9y ago
I'm expecting the quality to be on par with gear VR. They should be able to cut some costs when compared to phone manufactors, since they don't need to support SIM cards, can use bulkier components and get the case "for free".
root_axis 9y ago
It has no positional tracking so that already puts it within the "google cardboard" region of user experience quality (compared with the premium headsets)

FLGMwt 9y ago

As expected, looks like it'll be much closer to Gear VR than the Rift. It does not have positional tracking.

excalibur 9y ago

Love it! Sure there will be gripes about the capabilities and the specs, but a standalone headset that doesn't require a PC or phone is pretty much the ideal form factor for VR.

rocky1138 9y ago
It's getting there.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ansible 9y ago
In many ways, the standalone headset is potentially much better for VR/AR. At least with regards to reacting to the user's movements. If the processing and display is close to your face, that cuts down some of the latency. Now, yes, I know that at the speed of light (or more properly the speed of electrical signals) having a PC 3m away is only about 10ns, which is not going to be noticeable. But there will need to be translation on each end to send a signal that far away, such as conversion to / from HDMI. If the embedded processor in the headset is directly connected to the LCD, that type of conversion eliminated. Ditto for cameras and other sensors needed for position tracking. To reduce latency, developers are counting microseconds these days. Crazy.
- Retric 9y ago
  What your describing is a non issue. If you do something 10,000 time every frame that takes 10ns it's still only 0.0001 seconds and no you don't need to make that trip 10,000 times sequentially.
rdslw 9y ago
It does require external powerhouse (PC) if you would like to have any decent(1) virtual world. (1) all AAA games (working on the GTX 9xx or 1xxx) are still subpar to the reality, and they're disspating hundreds of wattage. It's not possible to put it into binoculars.

zylent 9y ago

"Today, we showed the next phase of Santa Cruz development, delivering hand presence with two positionally tracked controllers. This is an important, industry-first milestone that brings the magic and incredible design expertise of Touch into a completely standalone experience." How is this different than the vive controller?

RubenSandwich 9y ago
I’m guessing because it doesn’t require the Lighthouse ‘tracking tower’, but they are not quite clear on what they mean.
- zylent 9y ago
  That makes sense, I guess I'm just being pedantic
  - RubenSandwich 9y ago
    In my darkest days I feel like my job as a Software Engineer is to be pedantic to new ideas, because my work has trained me to be incurability micro oriented.
vertoc 9y ago
This is a stand-alone headset I believe - it doesn’t need a seperate computer to run
- shmed 9y ago
  More importantly, it doesnt require external sensors (to the opposite of the vive controllers and headset which require the 2 lighthouse sensors)
- rdslw 9y ago
  It does require a separate graphics card, though requiring separate PC or console. There need to be a place to dissipate that 200W+ of power current GTX cards are using, and this is not possible to fit it in kind of binoculars. Thats marketing gimmick Oculus is doing: it does not require phone (as daydream does) but it does require graphics powerhouse to generate all the virtual reality (unless you don't want the world to be as in current AAA games which DO REQUIRE GTX kind of power).

hauget 9y ago

Are specs cited anywhere? (e.g. resolution, battery life)

cridenour 9y ago

It's a little light on specs, but the price point is amazing for getting the broader community excited about VR.

eradicatethots 9y ago
This makes VR way way way more attractive to me - accessible and affordable. If VR will break through this seems like the product to do it. The trouble with VR so far isn’t VR itself, because Vr is actually pretty cool, but the trouble is that it’s a giant pain to get into, both cost and set up and so on, it’s not currently reasonable to buy vr . This product seems like it could change that. Seems like a big deal to me.

JohnTHaller 9y ago

Curious why a user would opt for this over a Google daydream given that it's near certain they already have a mobile device. Granted for iPhone users or mid/low end Android users with lower resolution screens it would be more cost effective than buying a mobile device with a good qhd screen.

Theodores 9y ago
Facebook. Although an open platform the goal here is to sell you advertisements. They can sell this platform much like a console. In ad revenue you could be worth the cost of the headset. They could give these things away if they wanted to own the VR gadget space forever.
- adjkant 9y ago
  And that's supposed to make me want to get this thing?
bootloop 9y ago
They cover this target group already with the Samsung Gear VR But as you said. Not everybody has a 1000$ phone.
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  Google Daydream works with phones like the Axon 7 ($380) and the Moto Z ($450) as well as the original Pixel ($549). It hardly requires a $1000 phone. It just requires something with a resolution better than 720p (mid/low end Android phones and the iPhone for that matter).
skykooler 9y ago
Possibilities: * User has an iPhone * User has a lower-end phone that can't run this * User has a different phone OS (Windows Phone, Sailfish OS, etc) * User's phone doesn't have long enough battery life while running 3d apps
- 9y ago

fenwick67 9y ago

Honestly I just want a Rift priced at $300 without the touch controllers (today, with touch controllers it's $400).

timdorr 9y ago
I got mine during the summer sale before they offered the all-in-one box. I got my HMD before I got my Touch controllers. Not having Touch was a huge limitation on the kinds of games I could use, and made the experience feel like a neato tech demo and not anything of substance. You definitely don't want a Rift without Touch.

TY 9y ago

Interesting news! Will be looking forward to the specs and actual demo experiences. Also, I wish they were lighter on the word "magic"...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Yuioup 9y ago

Sorry, but I'm really turned off of the Oculus Rift because of Palmer Luckey and Facebook. Gives me the creeps.

marlokk 9y ago
come on now, embrace your inevitable future https://cdn.uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zuckerberg-rows-1024x682.jpg https://cdn.uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zuckerbe...
cr0sh 9y ago
I don't think Palmer is part of Oculus any longer; I could have sworn he left earlier this year, or maybe last? Facebook is still there, though. Despite my being an early backer of the original Rift KS (I have the DK1 and the FB branded CV1 - both unused), I over Oculus' offerings, ever since they dropped Linux support. It was one of the main reasons I supported the KS to begin with, but then when it got big, they just decided our market segment wasn't worth supporting. I will never, ever understand why hardware companies have such problems with this - I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument why hardware API specs can't be released to the community in order to allow them to create drivers - instead, the community has to go thru an arduous round after round of reverse-engineering the protocols and API just to get (at best) 2nd-tier support of the device (usually with buggy and/or missing results). It's been a huge pain with graphics cards, and now its continuing with VR headsets. Also - why isn't anybody supporting or mentioning OSVR? There's another player in the headset market nobody ever mentions - Razer - who seems to be the only one who does support OSVR, yet their product is given virtually no coverage anywhere. I don't know why that is, either.
- Impossible 9y ago
  Razer doesn't get mentioned because their product is not very good. OSVR is their proprietary API, and its an "open" standard in the same way OpenVR is. OpenXR, the Khronos standard for VR/AR/MR devices will be the industry standard API equivalent to OpenGL, but even OpenVR (Vive/SteamVR api) is a better option than OSVR currently.

GuiA 9y ago

> awesome for watching movies or concerts, playing games, or just hanging out with your friends in VR. I have real life for movies, concerts, and hanging out with friends, so that leaves games. What’s the content offering like for VR these days? Are there any games that are more than a tech demo that lasts for a few hours? Something like a Skyrim or a Civ, that I will want to return to week after week?

kpil 9y ago
Flight sims. Elite dangerous. I think motion sickness might be a problem for some people though.

mtgx 9y ago

So I think that VR headsets (the real ones) do need to come down in price before they (and VR in general) can become mainstream, even though the technology is still quite not there yet, which means it will be hard to make such devices cheap while also upgrading their technology (or at least slow/er). However, this isn't really what Oculus is doing here. This isn't a "cheaper version of Oculus Rift". This is an expensive version of Gear VR/any Android Daydream headset. It has some extra sensors and whatnot, but other than that, it should play the same content. So how are most people going to understand the difference between a $60-$100 Daydream headset and a $200 Oculus Go? At least the $600 headsets actually offer you a different kind of experience (realistic 3D games, etc), even though their price means they'll be relegated to an early adopter market for a few more years.

hanikesn 9y ago
They also announced a new $400 permanent price for the Rift+Touch.
barnabee 9y ago
I have an iPhone, at least from that perspective it's a cheap version of the Gear VR.
BRAlNlAC 9y ago
I don't even get who buys these cheaper VR headsets. I'm an early-adopter type and I can't see the purpose of Galaxy VR, Google Daydream or this new Occulus Go. I guess they are just like a $100+ novelty? At least the Vive (and to a lesser extent the Rift) are gaming hardware that can be put to use if you have a high-end tower, but the resolution and frame rates good VR requires need state of the art hardware to run any (albeit subjectively) interesting titles at this point in time. It seems to me like they are taking a product that isn't there yet and pushing it to market hoping to dupe consumers into spending money on a half-baked idea. Kinda like the push towards "tablet computers" in the early 2000's.
- gervase 9y ago
  I get the same feeling when I see these products. I think they are targeted at the (surprisingly large!) segment of the population for whom their phone is their only computing device. In the bubble that is HN, they make little sense, but I assume these companies must have done some kind of market research that indicates that these products actually drive demand in a consumer group that has basically zero overlap with ours.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Aardwolf 9y ago

I don't see any earphones in the photos, how does it work for matching 3D audio? Does it have a headphone jack? EDIT: Oh it says it right there in the article! That was a redundant comment... Reason I cared about is that last time I tried VR, the audio came from stationary speakers and it was a very weird experience to have the direction of the audio not match what I saw :)

drdrey 9y ago
"If you need it, there’s also a 3.5mm headphone jack for private listening."
zylent 9y ago
The page says there is a 3.5mm jack.

ericzawo 9y ago

This doesn't say shit about shit. What kind of media will I be able to interact in with Oculus? To me the value add to purchasing one of these is to be able to see those cool 360 degree videos on Youtube, maybe game, and I don't know what else so educate me! Reads like an "announcing the announcement" more than anything.

jsgo 9y ago
My guess is that it is going to be an all-in-one of what is currently GearVR. Can't remember the name of the app, but there's a Video application where you can watch 360 videos (there are also apps that have 360 videos from Disney and the like) and 2D videos in a virtual theater (the theater is a skin though, so can watch in other locations as well). I've also watched the Youtube 360 videos you mention I believe within an app on the device, or maybe it was via browser. Sorry, been a while since I used the thing (neat device, but not enough to maintain interest). Personal experience: the video always looked grainy on my S7 Edge + GearVR headset. I'm kind of waiting for the next iteration of headsets of which I kind of think we're there with Samsung's Oddyssey or whatever (though really wanted LG to release that flip-visor headset they demoed as that'd be great for shifting between VR and real world without constantly taking off and putting on).

angryasian 9y ago

Im curious to know if the Oculus Go will work with the touch controllers.

bitmapbrother 9y ago

I'm going to take a guess and say that this is running a forked version of Android. Oculus has a Gear VR store [1] and it only makes sense to leverage the existing software catalog than start from scratch. [1]https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/ https://www.oculus.com/experiences/gear-vr/

mherrmann 9y ago

Does anybody know if VR headsets will eventually replace monitors? Would be great for ergonomics. Much more portable, you don't have to sit but can lie on a couch, have a lot of screen estate even in tight spaces such as on a plane etc. That with a keyboard is my dream setup.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
some-guy 9y ago
This is what I'm waiting for, basically. When I had a DK2, using the virtual desktop application was so much fun. The issue is that the resolution isn't quite there yet, but I think that issue will be solved sooner than you would think (at least for desktop use).
wukerplank 9y ago
It depends on your job, but this sounds horrific to me. Like a cubicle but smaller.
- Grazester 9y ago
  Isn't the idea of VR to be immersive so that is seems like a large real world?
  - wukerplank 9y ago
    Yes, but in my office I often talk to other devs, designers and QA being immersed in a different world would make collaboration a tedious task for everybody. Just being able to turn around and exchange a few words is fast, easy and human.
- linuxps2 9y ago
  I fly a ton for my job and I typically use a USB monitor but obviously on a plane this isn't possible (hell, there is barely enough room for me to work on just my laptop much less two screens) - virtual screens via a VR headset would be a game-changer for me. I probably wouldn't use them daily (quad monitor setup at home, usb monitor when travelling) but would definitely spend a several hundred on a headset if it means multi-monitor on a plane

boona 9y ago

I was hoping to buy the current Oculus, but I never got around to it since I for one need to plan out a bit more when it comes to that price. At a $200 price point though, I can pick one up without having to think about it twice. I'm getting one when it comes out.

vm 9y ago

Anyone know what the hurdles are for broad VR adoption? This announcement seems to be saying it's 1) untethered and 2) $200 price point. Those will probably increase the current market size but I just haven't seen anyone (anecdotally) clamoring for VR. Curious if anyone has a view on other bottlenecks.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yashksagar 9y ago
I believe there's still concerns around long-term usage, like the eyes/brain mismatch to focusing on something that's 'virtually' a few meters away, but in reality is in front of your face, which can cause nausea.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Being in the industry (AR actually not VR) and talking with customers and the average person almost weekly, the #1 barrier to HMDs: "I don't want to put something on my face"
- mdorazio 9y ago
  I agree. It's the same major factor that killed "3D" TVs - no one wants to put on special equipment just to watch a movie/play a game. I personally don't think headset-based VR will ever see mass market adoption in the same way that AR/MR will.
sago 9y ago
A killer 'app'. Some experience that can only be delivered on VR that is totally compelling to mainstream consumers. That could drive the entire segment, I think. I don't think its games. At least, it's not obvious how to turn existing kinds of games into VR experiences, and make them mind blowing. In my experience, VR games are not currently very good games, and are relatively lacklustre as tourist experiences. So what? I wish I knew. But I just don't think there is a compelling reason for most people, even most passionate gamers, at the moment. Which, as a fan, pains me to say.

polskibus 9y ago

Did they improve the resolution at all? As far as I remember, I was still able to see pixels and that spoils the immersion for me.

GuB-42 9y ago
If anything, it will be worse. The point of Oculus Go and Santa Cruz is to be untethered, and, if possible, cheaper than the Rift. While it is undoubtedly a worthy goal, as anyone who tried a VR headset can tell you, it also means that you are letting go of the hundreds of watts computing power that a compatible PC represents. And without that power, it will be much more difficult to get the required latency, framerate and resolution. EDIT : The Oculus Go is actually a little better than the rift : 2560x1440 vs 2160x1200, same FOV and supposedly better optics, so in term of not seeing the pixels, that should be better. The tradeoff is probably less details, maybe with upscaling.
- polskibus 9y ago
  That sucks. I wish they focused on best immersion quality first and optimize next.
  - spicyj 9y ago
    It sounds like they claim making it untethered makes a big improvement to immersion.
    - polskibus 9y ago
      I tried hololens, while I know it's AR not VR, the graphics sucked and it made the immersion much much worse than being on cable would. They should first achieve something that hooks people in ways not done before even if it requires a 1080ti in sli + cable. Lowering the specs and/or quality of the final image is the wrong way to do it.
      - agar 9y ago

socialist_coder 9y ago

What are the hardware stats on this Oculus Go? I can't imagine for $200 it's very impressive...

efnx 9y ago

I bought into Oculus with the DK2, but fell off once they discontinued support for Mac and Linux. It's a shame, really.

jv22222 9y ago

Is it just me, or does this image of three people laughing with one of them wearing a VR headset seem a bit bizzar? https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1788230948138287_3202612921985138688_n.jpg?oh=ae5250c43e08d6f1e357c789c1af0f0d&oe=5A73F659 https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/22044141_1... We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction. I can't think how many times I've seen a group of friends at a Starbucks not talking to each other and all looking at their devices. But, at least, their actual faces are not covered by a huge mask with no way to look into each others eyes. This picture makes me wonder about where this is all headed. For example, will there be a day when a group of friends are sitting around a table in Starbucks without the possibility of eye contact? Edit: I'm not against VR I am just musing about what this ultimately means for all of us.

monk_e_boy 9y ago
I wonder if this is a generational thing or a location thing. Over here in the UK my family went to the pub (3 families) to eat. The whole pub was mobile phone free. There were one or two on tables, but no one was looking at them, I guess they were there as 'phones' in case a baby sitter needed to phone.
agmcleod 9y ago
I think your fears are fair. Though in that specific shot, this reminds me of times where with a single headset, we all take turns using it, and the others enjoy watching them do it. Though as a day to day device one wears, I do worry that it removes us from each other too much.
sushisource 9y ago
" We've already all but killed social interaction with smart phone addiction. " (Rolleyes). Yeah, uh-huh. We can all agree phones sometimes intrude in ways we wouldn't like but if you think they've "killed all social interaction" you need to find some new friends. VR is certainly a different matter but humans fundamentally crave social interaction. VR won't change that. AI, eventually, on the other hand...
- 9y ago

thebiglebrewski 9y ago

This looks cool

n42 9y ago

The original Rift required a gaming rig to run. I'm curious what kind of tradeoffs have to be made to launch this. Personally, I'm not very interested in a VR headset being anything more than a display. This makes me feel like it is a Smart TV, which is not something I want. We'll see how I feel in the future.

dogma1138 9y ago
Eventually this will likely serve both. This is nothing more than say Samsung Gear VR but without a removable mobile phone That said being able to use this anywhere as a personal display device as well as not being limited by the pretty heavy umbilical cord setup is the way to go. If you are going to put wireless hardware in the headset it’s not like a mobile media player and a light application platform will detract from its value. As an early VR adopter I can say that both my headsets ended up on the shelf after a few weeks. It’s just too exhausting to play traditional games and with non-VR exclusive titles it’s actually a bit disadvantage in competitive play. Mouse look and keybind reverse look beat a VR headset in sims and the UI for any titles but EVE Valkyrie is still better on a flat display. Humans are not owls we can’t turn our necks at lighting speed and there is a reason why even 200M dollar jets have mirrors and now 360 camera coverage. Games like Elite aren’t designed like an F35 they are designed around mouse look and being able to switching between 3rd and 1st person views quickly. Until some one will design a VR game with 21st century smart helmet augmented reality style interface in the game it won’t work well and even then mouse look would still likely be faster. However the killer app for me was actually the home cinema app as well as some of the creative sandboxes. These don’t need my 1080ti setup and I don’t really want to be tethered to my tower.

linarism 9y ago

Positional tracking?

finnh 9y ago

This is a bit OT, but: I live in Seattle and I would love to experience a top-end VR headset; tethered is fine. Are there stores that specialize in this? Where would/should I go?

corysama 9y ago
https://www.meetup.com/topics/virtual-reality/us/wa/seattle/ https://www.meetup.com/topics/virtual-reality/us/wa/seattle/
- finnh 9y ago
  ah, thank you. I don't do social media so it doesn't even occur to me that answering this type of question is actually easy =)
Ajedi32 9y ago
Both Oculus and Vive give demos set up in various retail outlets in the US: https://live.oculus.com/ https://live.oculus.com/ http://locator.vive.com/ http://locator.vive.com/
Scaevolus 9y ago
There's a VR Arcade called "Portal" in Ballard that has padded rooms with Vive headsets hanging from the ceiling.
- shidoshi 9y ago
  In my neighborhood, and I keep meaning to stop in. I just keep walking by because I am unsure what they are selling.
AdamTReineke 9y ago
I'm pretty sure the Microsoft Store in Bellevue still has an HTC Vive set up for demos. There may be a couple people in line. I expect the other Microsoft stores have similar demo stations, you can probably call to verify if you don't want to cross the lake. [Disclaimer: work at Microsoft but not in retail. I've used the Vive but not the store demo station.]

kapnobatairza 9y ago

I feel like it was a missed opportunity not making this a mixed reality headset. VR is great for completely immersive experiences but otherwise becomes a nuisance. Problems I've had with VR: 1) Audiovisual Isolation. With immersive VR you are unable to interact with the real world and often unable to see or here what is going on around you. It always feels creepy to me to put on my VIVE and not be aware that someone has walked into my room or has been knocking on my door. 2) Very poor multitasking. VR experiences demand uninterrupted focus. I'm often not 100% immersed in whatever I'm doing at any given time. I will share my focus with other activities and other external events. I don't like having my focus locked onto a single activity for long spans of time. If I'm gaming, I'll probably alt-tab once in a while to send a chat message. If I'm watching a movie, I'll likewise pause or shift my focus if something demands it. There are very limited blocks of time where I'm willing and able to give a VR experience uninterrupted focus. 3) Inability to physically interact with real world objects. If you don't need to do that, that's fine. But what if you want to take a sip of your drink? Eat a snack? Have a smoke? When you have 0 spatial awareness, that is very difficult to do. Even putting down your controllers and switching to a keyboard is hard to do when you cant see where it is. You could just remove the headset every time you want to do this, but that's very cumbersome. This headset doesn't even have a fliptop so that makes it even more cumbersome. All in all I'm not sure how much utility fully immersive HMDs have outside of some unique interactive experiences that are short enough to mitigate some of the above problems. Remember that "dumb" HMD displays (like this: http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/__5010906_orig.png http://www.siliconmicrodisplay.com/uploads/9/0/4/6/9046759/_...) have been available since the 90s. They were also billed as the future of entertainment and TV/monitor killers, but adoption never picked up for the reasons above. People don't like giving up all their focus. That's why mixed reality headsets are more promising to me. If you can insert virtual windows/objects into real world spaces, you can introduce immersion without necessarily sacrificing awareness. Let people jump in and out of virtual reality without having it be an all or nothing compromise.

yashksagar 9y ago

"Oculus, creating a 'rift' between humans at an affordable price."

crunkykd 9y ago

VR would be nice for shut-ins (infirm, imprisoned, remote, etc) to vector somewhere else.